The real master tactician revealed herself yesterday

Oh what a terrible day it was for David Cameron yesterday, consensus it seems largely reigns between the great and good of the nations commentators, whilst ConservativeHome for the most part appears to be in a state of shock. The default and consensus analysis of the events seems to go like this.

Cameron launched a report full of bonkers ideas, and then Thatcher gazumped his press conference by wearing no lesser colour than a sickening pink on the doorstep of Number 10 with our unity Prime Minister who only has the nation's interest at heart. The master strategist and tactician Brown does it again and has turned the lady who was not for turning they say. Brown has played Cameron for the pygmy chump that he is the general cacophony of analysis.

Yet I cannot help myself pondering a question, who was actually playing who in this meeting of great opposing conviction Prime Minister? It's been reported that Thatcher did not tell CCHQ that she was going, likewise it's been reported that Brown did this deliberately to trash the launch of the Tory Quality of Life report and destabilise Cameron by causing internal rifts and division. Yet no one seems to be asking what Thatcher’s motivation was? It's all about Brown, Brown, Brown.

All the comment seems to be framed in terms of what Brown can gain from the doorstep pictures over Cameron. But the real analysis surely should be about who has more to lose between the two leaders? In the past few weeks Brown has had to face down the Unions on two occasions, over prisons and the Tube. His speech to the TUC earlier this week was given a frosty reception. There is talk of Union mutiny and dissociation, the old Left never went away, but it swallowed the bitter sweet pill of Blair for ten years whilst it waited for "their man" to seize control, and he’s not acting like they thought he would.

Since taking over he has tried, they say, to apply ever-greater control to the Labour Party, he is non-compliant to the Unions’ demand. Then he threw them some extra taxpayer money as a sweetener. Brown the master strategist knows after all that the inherent of socialism is that if you offer money to its supporters they bite your hand off for it. Brown masterly smoothed the way for himself in the coming battle at his conference, and yet then, with the flick of pen to a paper invite, he pissed them all off again.

Why would he do that? Well as the commentators say, he feels secure in his position, he is confident, and he wants to crush the Conservative Party. Yet might that confidence be his single biggest weakness? Ask yourself this. When Thatcher received the invite do you think she didn't think about the political ramifications of accepting? After all, she was, love her or loathe her, a master strategist and tactician herself. It is beyond doubt that she would not have weighed up the political gains and losses of accepting the invite.

She will have known that Brown was facing a potential battle with the Unions for a start. She may be old, but she isn't completely senile (yet). I imagine she will have known that standing with Brown for the press photos would create a reaction from the Unions who had recently been sweetened with a kickback akin to laundering taxpayer money. She will have been acutely aware that merely her presence would sour that relationship between Brown and Union that was already fractious.

She will have also known that the Quality of Life report was being released. She will have seen the reaction to the some of the weird and wacky nonsense that was trailed over the week preceding it. She will have known how the media would react to her presence as well. She would know that this opportunity would at least bury the report under a small layer of earth and buy the Conservative Party some time as well as less bad copy. She will have also known that Brown’s ego was what was driving him now, and identified that as a weakness.

However, there is one other crucial question to ask. Who might Brown have been hoping to play too whilst still trying to destabilise Cameron? According to much of the comment this was an appeal to that place we have come to call "middle England". Sir Michael White - whose arrogance makes mine look mild – made this point in his commentary in this morning’s Guardian.

But what is this place we call “middle England”? Is it not that place where the electorate voted for Thatcher consistently, then Major, and then decided to punt on Blair, probably voting Labour for the first time in their life? Certainly Brown needs their votes, but they’re also the sorts of people that listen to The Who, and know that they won't get fooled again.

As they sat with their cornflakes and read the paper this morning before jumping in their car and driving off to work they won’t have been looking at the picture and thinking "oh look, he's like her really". They're going to be looking at their pocket, and the last ten years of Brown's record and thinking "at least when Blair lied to us he was convincing".

And there is of course one other thing. The Labour Party's dominant meme against the Conservative Party is "same old Tories". Brown's decision to invite Thatcher, her decision to accept, and his decision to get the doorstep photo, has effectively neutralsied that argument and killed it dead in its tracks. "Same old Tories" can now be answered with "your leader had her round to visit, we can't be that bad".

Gordon Brown may very well be a master strategist and tactician, but yesterday his ego and overriding desire to destabilise Cameron exposed his flank, and a superior master of the game exploited it savagely.

Update: I imagine a number of people might think that such complex thinking about the political ramifications of the visit might be beyond Thatcher because of her age and her memory. I can't say one way or other on that as it really is speculation (isin't it always), but generally speaking I still think that the visit will have more of a negative impact on Brown than it will on Cameron.